Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #466689 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-13 02:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 379 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 09:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. leongdentalsf@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 06:23 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. leongdentalsf@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 06:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:26 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 11:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-03 09:54 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 18:02 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-03 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-04 12:10 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 11:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-07-05 13:49 +1000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:31 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-07-05 16:03 +1000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 18:28 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 20:57 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 14:57 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 04:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 08:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 08:54 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 17:27 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-07 15:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 15:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 16:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 18:18 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-08 08:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-08 08:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 08:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 11:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 18:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 19:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 18:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-07-12 12:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 07:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 20:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 16:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 08:01 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 04:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:48 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:50 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 05:51 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:55 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 15:34 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 16:24 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:40 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-20 17:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 17:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:43 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-21 07:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:39 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:02 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:03 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-13 09:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:58 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:18 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 13:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:12 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 12:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 19:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 04:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 12:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 03:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 04:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 10:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:42 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:24 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 12:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 06:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 19:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-04 20:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:38 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 22:15 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-10 10:43 +0300
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 06:55 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-10 21:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:01 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:26 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 17:22 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 21:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 15:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 15:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 04:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-13 02:57 -0700
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3uemmcdtea2m6tco6648acd7jvn6b9j19c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #468741 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>So what is the essential diffence between Damascus steel and 3D printing?
>
>Both take chunks of a base material and fuse the chunks into a bigger
>object.
>
Actually, no, they don't. What you are describing are later attempts
to replicate Damascus steel by pattern welding that did not produce
the same stuff at all. No one knows how to make the original Damascus
steel.
As far as that goes, that's not what 3D-printing does, either, except
at the very extreme that says everything is made that way.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33d271bc46225db998998d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #468284 |
In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > > "David Mitchell" wrote in message > > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... > >> > >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> > >>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? > >>>> > >>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. > >>> > >>> Could you be any more vague? > >> > >>Yes. Yes I could. > >> > >>Things. People will make things. All of the things. > > > > I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal > > computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need > > a few major mainframes. > > Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart > phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. The original point was that the original "personal computers" were hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good these days. New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very same thing will happen with 3D printing. > > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing > > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of > > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no > > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. > > How many people do you know that own 3D printers? That's today. We're talking about the trending of the technology. > I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines, > drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. > > > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to > > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at > > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, > > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. > > Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468410 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >> > "David Mitchell" wrote in message >> > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >> >> >> >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? >> >>>> >> >>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. >> >>> >> >>> Could you be any more vague? >> >> >> >>Yes. Yes I could. >> >> >> >>Things. People will make things. All of the things. >> > >> > I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >> > computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need >> > a few major mainframes. >> >> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart >> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. > > The original point was that the original "personal computers" were > hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There > absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" > back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop > form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price > dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more > (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), > > Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple > iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App > Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell > data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the > Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the > majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, > more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good > these days. > > New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for > individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very > same thing will happen with 3D printing. New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. Printing speed is limited by basic physics. Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on equipment they already own. 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do you know that have one? >> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and > printing >> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of >> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no >> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >> >> How many people do you know that own 3D printers? > > That's today. We're talking about the trending of the technology. The trending of the technology for home use is anybodies guess; my guess is that it will be trivial and hobbiests just like the people that own machinery like drill presses and milling machines. >> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines, >> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >> >> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to >> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at >> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, >> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >> >> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. > > That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. Maybe to the typical internet generation knee jerker that immediately responds with anger and bile to what he THINKS was said as opposed to what was actually said. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f32053eb-b390-4ccc-9422-3453f54d141e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468448 |
On Friday, 14 July 2017 18:16:11 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for > > individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very > > same thing will happen with 3D printing. > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. Well let's see. Today when you buy plastic or ali it's bulk purchased by the mfr and shipped often long distance. Then there are markups at each stage of distribution. That all costs. With a future 3d printer you can probably feed it the plastics & ali cans people today throw away, cost zero to scrap price, which is of course a lot cheaper. > Printing speed is limited by basic physics. Yes. What is the physical limit of the number of printing nozzles that can operate at once in a cube? > Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on > equipment they already own. We already demolished that false argument > 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do > you know that have one? and that one NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33d32751eccecdae98998e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #468448 |
In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't take my word for it: http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. > Printing speed is limited by basic physics. The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. > Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on > equipment they already own. Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess that's my opinion. > 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do > you know that have one? As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has not reached its full potential, IMHO. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edward.ming.lee@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49f28136-693a-478a-9301-ca265862dc42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468551 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > take my word for it: > > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these > days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I > grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I > sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. > > > Printing speed is limited by basic physics. > > The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too > so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer > controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is > done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. > > > Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on > > equipment they already own. > > Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor > intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet > and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess > that's my opinion. > > > 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do > > you know that have one? > > As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the > technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming > more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology > which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the > industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has > not reached its full potential, IMHO. Just ordered one to build plastic prototype. Not going to use 3D printing for aluminum, steel or titanium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0acdc50-e9b6-417f-8a24-6b0140a6dc9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468559 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: > > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > > says... > > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > > > > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > > take my word for it: > > > > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > > > > It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <na4kmcd5euae3dpek4piqbdp5pbh2euc2b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #468596 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: >> > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> > says... > >> > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >> > >> > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >> > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >> > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >> > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >> > take my word for it: >> > >> > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >> > >> >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics kiln, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4d36d5e-ebad-456e-83ec-5107dddf1ae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468605 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 13:58:47 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > >> > says... > > > >> > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > >> > > >> > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > >> > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > >> > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > >> > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > >> > take my word for it: > >> > > >> > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > >> > > >> > >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > > > >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? > > Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics > kiln, either. If in many years time I can have a machine that prints aluminium into all sorts of goods using nothing but empty cans, I'll pay the 3 units of electricity. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hr4lmcd518rfvak4jnd5pjcoeb4ggg3d5i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #468661 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 13:58:47 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >> > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> >> > says... >> > >> >> > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >> >> > >> >> > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >> >> > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >> >> > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >> >> > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >> >> > take my word for it: >> >> > >> >> > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. >> > >> >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? >> >> Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics >> kiln, either. > >If in many years time I can have a machine that prints aluminium into all sorts of goods using nothing but empty cans, I'll pay the 3 units of electricity. > Three GWh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 01:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49dbcb4b-3603-4b01-8f58-cc78e973b56a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468708 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 23:13:33 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 13:58:47 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > >> > > >> >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? > >> > >> Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics > >> kiln, either. > > > >If in many years time I can have a machine that prints aluminium into all sorts of goods using nothing but empty cans, I'll pay the 3 units of electricity. > > > Three GWh? Last time I checked it didn't take 3GWh to melt a few dozen ali cans. What are you thinking of building with that much, a national fleet of buses? NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sktvmc9bji8jfjioilvr4ddelcbdnec9tq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #469535 |
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:44:40 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 23:13:33 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 13:58:47 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. >> >> > >> >> >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? >> >> >> >> Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics >> >> kiln, either. >> > >> >If in many years time I can have a machine that prints aluminium into all sorts of goods using nothing but empty cans, I'll pay the 3 units of electricity. >> > >> Three GWh? > >Last time I checked it didn't take 3GWh to melt a few dozen ali cans. What are you thinking of building with that much, a national fleet of buses? You said "three units". GWh is a "unit".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 03:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28b517c0-3f84-42a8-a55a-0c6267de46ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #469658 |
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 01:18:21 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:44:40 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 23:13:33 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 13:58:47 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 04:00:50 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >> >On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> >> >> It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > >> >> > > >> >> >That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? > >> >> > >> >> Than have my own aluminum smelter? You bet! I don't have a ceramics > >> >> kiln, either. > >> > > >> >If in many years time I can have a machine that prints aluminium into all sorts of goods using nothing but empty cans, I'll pay the 3 units of electricity. > >> > > >> Three GWh? > > > >Last time I checked it didn't take 3GWh to melt a few dozen ali cans. What are you thinking of building with that much, a national fleet of buses? > > You said "three units". GWh is a "unit". Ah. Electricity here is sold in kWh, known across the nation as 'units' NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edward.ming.lee@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24108d54-60b1-4c10-8613-3da88c0b4fbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468596 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 4:01:00 AM UTC-7, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > > > says... > > > > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > > > > > > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > > > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > > > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > > > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > > > take my word for it: > > > > > > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > > > > > > > It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > > That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? > > > NT Yes, i am buying some 8" 1mm aluminum disks for $2. At 20 cents per kilowatt for electricity, i bet it would be much more to do it myself, even if materials and my labors are free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 01:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72175571-b23d-4c83-a1d9-a35a8323941d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468679 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 21:52:47 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 4:01:00 AM UTC-7, tabby wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 July 2017 03:08:11 UTC+1, edward....@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:09:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > > > > says... > > > > > New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > > > > > > > > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > > > > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > > > > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > > > > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > > > > take my word for it: > > > > > > > > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > > > > > > > > > > It's easy to melt aluminum (700C) in factory. I don't think too many people want to do it at home. Think of all the heating and then cooling cost. > > > > That's funny. You'd rather pay full retail for something than a few units of electricity? > > Yes, i am buying some 8" 1mm aluminum disks for $2. At 20 cents per kilowatt for electricity, i bet it would be much more to do it myself, even if materials and my labors are free. I.e. you don't know. $2 buys 10 units at that price. I find it a bit hard to believe it would take 10 units to melt such a small amount of ali, but I haven't calculated it either. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9cao3e-hnl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468551 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > > This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive > that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's > do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? > Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't > take my word for it: > > http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly since then. The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". > I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these > days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I > grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I > sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. Again, mature technology. >> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. > > The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too > so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer > controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is > done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not much that can be done to speed it up significantly. Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job turns to shit in the middle of the process. >> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >> equipment they already own. > > Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor > intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet > and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess > that's my opinion. Yep, hobby printing some plastic trinket is about the same level of difficulty and it is obvious you have never done any baking. >> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >> you know that have one? > > As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the > technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming > more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology > which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the > industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has > not reached its full potential, IMHO. 3D printing is over 30 years old and getting close to being a mature technology for anything that would ever be used at home. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MpCdnTFBENsoM_TEnZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #468561 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >> >> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >> take my word for it: >> >> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > > Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly > since then. > > The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". > >> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. > > Again, mature technology. > >>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >> >> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. > > The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not > much that can be done to speed it up significantly. That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print heads in parallel. No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to remain credible. > Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job > turns to shit in the middle of the process. Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that doesn't stop millions of people having printers. > >>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>> equipment they already own. >> >> Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >> intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >> and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >> that's my opinion. > > Yep, hobby printing some plastic trinket is about the same level of > difficulty and it is obvious you have never done any baking. I have, and it's a lot more than pressing a button, unless you use a breadmaker; which I do, kind of proving my point. >>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>> you know that have one? >> >> As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >> technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >> more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >> which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >> industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >> not reached its full potential, IMHO. > > 3D printing is over 30 years old and getting close to being a mature > technology for anything that would ever be used at home. Aren't you agreeing with us now? 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tt2q3e-vor.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #468584 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>> >>> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >>> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >>> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >>> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >>> take my word for it: >>> >>> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >> >> Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly >> since then. >> >> The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". >> >>> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >>> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >>> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >>> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. >> >> Again, mature technology. >> >>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>> >>> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >>> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >>> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >>> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. >> >> The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not >> much that can be done to speed it up significantly. > > That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than > others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print > heads in parallel. And still be nowhere as fast as casting, molding, or stamping by orders of magnitude. > No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of > technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. Nonsense. How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's invention in the 16th century? Some technology gets better, faster, and cheaper with time and some is pretty near mature shortly after it's invention. > If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a > reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to > remain credible. Accuracy depends on deposition size. Depositon size determines total depostition time. Wait time between layers is limited by the hardening time of the last layer. >> Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job >> turns to shit in the middle of the process. > > Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home > printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that > doesn't stop millions of people having printers. Apples and oranges and irrelevant. If it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter what happens, how long it takes, what it costs, or if it is worth anything to anybody. >>>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>>> equipment they already own. >>> >>> Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >>> intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >>> and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >>> that's my opinion. >> >> Yep, hobby printing some plastic trinket is about the same level of >> difficulty and it is obvious you have never done any baking. > > I have, and it's a lot more than pressing a button, unless you use a breadmaker; > which I do, kind of proving my point. And yet few people these days have breadmakers since the fad is over. >>>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>>> you know that have one? >>> >>> As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >>> technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >>> more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >>> which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >>> industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >>> not reached its full potential, IMHO. >> >> 3D printing is over 30 years old and getting close to being a mature >> technology for anything that would ever be used at home. > > Aren't you agreeing with us now? > > 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, > black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. > > Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper. Color printing goes back a lot farther than that and is still not very fast for consumer grade printers. A couple of decades ago there were color printers whose feed was a truck with a roll of paper backed up to the printer and that printed so fast that the paper needed cooling to prevent it from bursting into flames. Consumer printers got cheap because they have limited capabilities and can be mass produced by methods like injection molding and stamping of component parts. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78cbab23-0262-4316-85bc-5b89fdc0cea3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #468646 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2017 19:31:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > >>> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > >>> says... > >> The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not > >> much that can be done to speed it up significantly. > > > > That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than > > others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print > > heads in parallel. > > And still be nowhere as fast as casting, molding, or stamping by orders > of magnitude. There are other ways to speed it up too that are known today. And it's far from a mature technology. > > No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of > > technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. > > Nonsense. > > How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's > invention in the 16th century? I'm no expert on pencils, but if the wiki section on pencil history is anything to go by: hugely cheaper, hugely better, hugely faster to make. > Some technology gets better, faster, and cheaper with time and some is > pretty near mature shortly after it's invention. > > > If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a > > reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to > > remain credible. > > Accuracy depends on deposition size. Depositon size determines total > depostition time. Today we don't have different size jets selectable on the fly. That will likely change. Today we don't have the ability to print onto preexisting generic blanks or semirandom lumps of material. That will likely change. > Wait time between layers is limited by the hardening > time of the last layer. which depends on printer temperature, airjets, types of plastic of which more are discovered over the years, etc Your argument that 3d printers can't improve significantly is completely and utterly unsupportable. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UdqdnedlPdvqn_bEnZ2dnUU78aHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #468646 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>>> >>>> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >>>> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >>>> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >>>> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >>>> take my word for it: >>>> >>>> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >>> >>> Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly >>> since then. >>> >>> The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". >>> >>>> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >>>> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >>>> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >>>> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. >>> >>> Again, mature technology. >>> >>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>>> >>>> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >>>> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >>>> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >>>> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. >>> >>> The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not >>> much that can be done to speed it up significantly. >> >> That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than >> others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print >> heads in parallel. > > And still be nowhere as fast as casting, molding, or stamping by orders > of magnitude. They can reasonably be expected to become as fast as they need to be for home use. I don't need a replacement knife in 1/10 second; if could have one in five minutes, that'd be fast enough. > >> No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of >> technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. > > Nonsense. > > How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's > invention in the 16th century? > > Some technology gets better, faster, and cheaper with time and some is > pretty near mature shortly after it's invention. I think "the pencil" is pretty much a straw man here. Fabrication technology has already shown it's in the "continually improving" category. > >> If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a >> reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to >> remain credible. > > Accuracy depends on deposition size. Depositon size determines total > depostition time. Wait time between layers is limited by the hardening > time of the last layer. Some technologies are better than others, and not all technologies are realistically constrained by those factors you describe. http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever "The result is 25 to 100 times faster than conventional printing. It also works with more materials, including the entire polymer family, and at a higher resolution than competitors, which build objects in layers—making CLIP ideal for custom commercial manufacturing. Now Carbon, the company DeSimone co-founded with chemist Ed Samulski, is partnering with BMW, Johnson & Johnson, and others to do just that." https://all3dp.com/1/worlds-fastest-3d-printer-speed-3d-printing/ "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." > >>> Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job >>> turns to shit in the middle of the process. >> >> Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home >> printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that >> doesn't stop millions of people having printers. > > Apples and oranges and irrelevant. Not really, it's an operation which people initiate with a few simple actions, but which might take significant time, which most people then leave to complete. Occasional snafus occur; which appears to be something you think is relevant; but people still use printers despite this. I think the relevance is pretty clear. > And yet few people these days have breadmakers since the fad is over. Indeed, possibly because they're single use machines, and not very good. >> 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, >> black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. >> >> Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper. > > Color printing goes back a lot farther than that and is still not very > fast for consumer grade printers. It's fast enough. Nine pages/minute. > > A couple of decades ago there were color printers whose feed was a truck > with a roll of paper backed up to the printer and that printed so fast > that the paper needed cooling to prevent it from bursting into flames. So the technology is getting better? Who would have thought. > > Consumer printers got cheap because they have limited capabilities and > can be mass produced by methods like injection molding and stamping of > component parts. Their capabilities include quickly and accurately placing varying materials on a 2-D surface which is how some kinds of fabricators work, and they've improved from "feedstock might catch fire" to cheap, fast and reliable. I think you're making my point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web